LIMITED LIFE
FOUNDATIONS
Motivations, Experiences,
and Strategies
Francie Ostrower
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
CENTER ON NONPROFITS AND PHILANTHROPY
LIMITED LIFE
FOUNDATIONS
Motivations, Experiences,
and Strategies
Francie Ostrower
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
CENTER ON NONPROFITS AND PHILANTHROPY
Copyright © February 2009. The Urban Institute. All rights reserved. Except for short quotes, no part of this report may be
reproduced or used in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by
information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the Urban Institute.
The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization that examines the social,
economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be
attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
About the Author
iv
v
About the Study
2
Limited Life and Perpetual Foundations: Comparisons
Organizational and Demographic Characteristics
Ideas about Foundation Effectiveness
5
Grantmaking and Technical Assistance
5
Self-Assessment
6
3
3
Motivations, Experiences, and Approaches of Those Planning to Limit Life:
The Interviews
7
Deciding to Sunset
8
Debating Perpetuity and Sunsetting
10
The Experience of Sunsetting
11
Perceived Influence of Sunsetting
11
Perceived Disadvantages of Limiting Foundation Life
13
Implementing a Sunset Plan: Challenges, Opportunities, and Approaches
Conclusions and Implications
Notes
References
14
18
20
21
iii
Acknowledgments
Funding was provided by the Atlantic Philanthropies and is gratefully acknowledged.
The author thanks Elizabeth Boris, Evelyn Brody, Stanley Katz, Jackie Williams Kaye,
and James Allen Smith for their comments.
iv
About the Author
Francie Ostrower, an Urban Institute associate scholar, is a professor in the
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and the Department of Theatre and Dance
at the University of Texas at Austin.
v
I
“ started the foundation in order to do what I wanted. . . . Twenty-five years after I’m
gone, the foundation will terminate.” The donor who said this describes himself as
“not super-conventional.” His decision to limit his foundation’s life is indeed an unconventional one. Most foundations are established in perpetuity, but the limited life option
is starting to attract more attention, including media coverage of high profile examples
of foundation closures. A major gap in the literature on philanthropy, however, is the
absence of research on the motivations, strategies, and experiences associated with the
decision to sunset. Consequently, little information is available to assist donors, foundation trustees, and staff wishing to consider and/or implement a plan to sunset.
The purpose of this discussion is to help fill this gap. It is not to advocate either for
or against sunsetting but rather to shed light on it as an option, and to glean lessons from
those that have undertaken it that may prove helpful to donors and foundations considering or implementing a plan to sunset. Furthermore, the research literature typically
focuses on foundations with a permanent endowment (and sometimes takes for granted
that a permanent endowment is part of the definition of “foundation”). By looking at foundations that do not intend a permanent endowment and asking what impact the decision
to terminate has on such a foundation, this study also seeks to broaden our understanding of foundations and their possibilities. The discussion and the conclusions are offered
in a preliminary spirit intended to spur and inform future research. Much additional work
on sunsetting remains to be done.
In this spirit, we emphasize the fundamental differences we found among limited life
foundations and strongly recommend that future research and discussion incorporate a
greater recognition of these. We suggest many of these differences can be summarized
along three dimensions related to the donors’ and/or trustees’ orientation toward sunsetting, as follows:
● To what extent do donors and/or trustees approach sunsetting as a positive strategy for
achieving some purpose? For instance, donors may choose to sunset because they want
personal engagement with giving during their lifetime.
● To what extent do donors and/or trustees choose sunsetting because they lack other
options, or have a negative view of perpetuity? For instance, some donors choose to
sunset because they have no children to carry on the foundation, while others want
avoid the bureaucracy that they associate with institutionalized philanthropy.
● Do donors and/or trustees view sunsetting solely a personal preference, or do they
explicitly link it to achieving specific philanthropic outcomes? For instance, some
choose to sunset solely because they believe that is the best way to ensure the foundation stays faithful to the donor’s intent, while others feel that spending more money in
a shorter period provides a more effective way to achieve a particular philanthropic
outcome.
One of our most striking findings was how infrequently limited life foundations linked
their longevity plans to their overall philanthropic mission, strategy, and impact. Yet a
few of them did. Their experiences point to ways sunsetting can be incorporated into a
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
1
broader philanthropic strategy that may interest donors and foundations as they consider
longevity. Interestingly, those that chose limited life due to a negative assessment of perpetuity and out of personal considerations sometimes later came to feel that sunsetting
did enhance their philanthropy. Reporting on these cases allows other foundations to benefit from their experience and integrate the lessons learned into their implementation
strategy.
We did find some marked differences between limited life and perpetual foundations,
yet in many respects they were not distinct. Furthermore, we found that some donors opt
neither for a pure spend-down nor perpetuity option, but devise modified sunsetting plans
or opt to leave their ultimate plans open. Finally, a clear conclusion emerged that, regardless of the decision about longevity that was ultimately made, foundation donors and
trustees felt they benefited from an explicit discussion because it helped them clarify and
solidify their philanthropic commitments.
About the Study
The study employs survey data collected for an earlier 2003 Urban Institute survey of
foundation approaches to effective philanthropy as well as data from in-depth interviews
conducted from 2007 to 2008 specifically for the present study. The survey data include
850 staffed private foundations. Of these foundations, 70 planned limited life, 650 planned
perpetuity, and 135 said they were undecided. As we can see, only 8 percent of the foundations had chosen limited life, fairly close to the 9 percent identified by the Foundation
Center’s survey of 697 foundations (Renz and Lawrence 2004, 10). Some believe that sunsetting is becoming more common, but to date we have not seen evidence to confirm that
assertion. A survey of 435 foundations conducted in the early 1980s (which did include
unstaffed foundations) found 10 percent of their sample reporting plans to terminate
(Boris 1987). Limited life foundations in our study were younger than perpetual life ones,
but one would expect that under any circumstance (since by definition sunsetting foundations do not live as long). To answer these questions requires tracking a comparable
sample of foundations over time.
Our survey asked a wide set of questions about beliefs concerning what makes a foundation effective and practices related to grantmaking, collaboration, communications,
and evaluation. Thus, we are able to compare the attitudes and practices of limited life
and perpetual foundations across a variety of practices. Keep in mind, though, that the
survey was not designed to study foundation longevity and therefore did not specifically
probe issues related to sunsetting.
Thus, to supplement the survey data and probe specifically about motivations, experiences, and strategies associated with limiting life, we followed up by interviewing a set
of the survey’s limited life and undecided foundations. Note that since the survey was sent
to staffed foundations in general, it provided us with a large list of limited life foundations
that included not only well-publicized cases but also those not among the “usual suspects,” permitting a more inclusive and representative study. For instance, our sample
includes both foundations that want to share their experiences publicly to promote
2
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
greater consideration of sunsetting as well as others that had no such goal and preferred
their decision to remain private as long as possible.
We interviewed the larger foundations in the study (i.e., rather than draw a random
sample, we started with the largest and worked down). All of the foundations had at least
$20 million in assets, most had $50 million or more, and over 25 percent had assets in
excess of $100 million. Foundations with larger assets clearly face different options and
challenges with respect to implementing a sunsetting plan, and thus, we wanted to maintain some comparability by putting a lower boundary on size. Among those planning termination, 86 percent contacted agreed to an interview, while the percentage was 71
among undecided foundations.1
Interviews were conducted with 31 foundation board heads and CEOs from 29 such
foundations. Of these, 19 foundations indicated on the survey they planned to terminate
and 10 indicated they were undecided. By the time of the interviews five years later, three
had opted for limited life, two remained undecided, and three planned perpetuity. The
remaining two were pursuing a “modified spend down” strategy, in which they had
decided to spend down a portion of the endowment. One planned to leave the balance in
perpetuity while keeping open the possibility of changing later while the other deferred
the decision about the remaining assets until after the initial spend down. In both cases,
the door was left open due to an evolving family situation.
Limited Life and Perpetual Foundations: Comparisons
An interviewee who had been involved with two sunsetting foundations observed that
“you wouldn’t see [them] any differently than other foundations on a day-to-day basis
because of the fact that they are spending down. You couldn’t discriminate . . . based
on their grantmaking.” Our survey certainly indicates that other foundation characteristics, such as size, offer better clues to how a foundation will think and behave with
respect to their practices across a wide array of areas, including grantmaking, communications, collaboration, and evaluation. There are however, certain differences between
limited life and perpetual foundations that we found, including those that speak to
rationales for adopting a sunset provision and challenges in implementing one. We
begin by considering what our survey reveals about any different organizational characteristics of foundations planning limited versus perpetual life. We then turn to whether
the choice of limited versus perpetual life reveals any association with philanthropic
beliefs and practices.
Organizational and Demographic Characteristics
Limited life foundations were on average younger (25 years) than perpetual ones (36 years).
Medians, which were 19 for limited life and 36 years for perpetual life, reveal even
greater age differences. It is tempting to conclude that these findings support the contention some have made that sunsetting is becoming more popular—but extreme caution should be exercised in this regard. As noted above, whether or not sunsetting is
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
3
becoming more popular, we would expect a sample of perpetual-life foundations to be
older by definition, and we do not have the data to draw conclusions about trends over
time. An intriguing question that we also cannot answer from these data but that warrants further research is how long a lifespan limited life foundations select (including
number of years following the donor’s death) and whether this influences their behavior.
We do find evidence that sunsetting is somewhat more popular among West Coast
and East Coast foundations. Twelve percent of West Coast foundations and 10 percent of
East Coast foundations planned to sunset, compared with 6 percent of foundations in the
Midwest or South. The pattern is particularly interesting when you consider that even
though West Coast foundations are likely to be younger, they remain statistically more
likely to choose termination than southern ones even after age is taken into account. And,
the East Coast, with the second highest rate of termination also had the oldest population of foundations in the study.2
There was a relationship between foundation size and proclivity to choose limited life,
but not a simple linear one: foundations with less than $10 million in assets most often
(11 percent) planned termination. Yet there was no significant difference in the likelihood
of choosing termination in size categories over $10 million—where it remains between
6 to 7 percent. It does mean that a considerably higher percentage of foundations planning limited life (49 percent) than perpetual foundations (32 percent) are in this smallest asset group, and their comparatively low level of assets may be one reason foundations
decide to sunset. It would be interesting to explore how such foundations terminate,
including whether they make direct grants to public charities and spend out, and/or
whether some may be converted to funds in community foundations.
Limited life foundations are also far more likely to have a living donor (50 percent)
than perpetual life foundations (21 percent). In some cases, it is difficult to disentangle
whether differences between limited life and perpetual foundations are due to differences
in longevity plans per se or whether they are due to the presence of a living donor. As we
shall see, however, our data indicate that a key difference between limited life and perpetual foundations—with respect to adherence to donor intent—comes into play precisely
when a living donor is no longer involved.
Our findings do not indicate a proclivity for foundations in particular fields of activity
(e.g., human services, culture) to select limited life over perpetuity with one exception:
a higher percentage of foundations reporting international affairs as a significant funding area planned termination (15 percent).
Given the antipathy of many limited life foundations to bureaucracy and institutional
philanthropy, one might expect them to have substantially fewer staff, but this did not
prove to be the case. On average, limited life foundations had an average of three professional staff, compared with four among perpetual life foundations, and both types had an
average of three support staff. Our sample includes only those with at least one staff member, however, so we would not be able to tell if limited life foundations were more likely
to employ no staff.
Whatever their demographic characteristics, a question that arises is whether the
choice of termination is associated with differences in foundations’ outlook and operations.
4
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
Ideas about Foundation Effectiveness
Perhaps the most common argument made by advocates of limiting foundation life is
that it promotes adherence to donor intent, while perpetual life foundations drift away
from that intent after the death of their founding donor. Our findings are consistent with
that position. Among limited life and perpetual life foundations whose donors are
deceased, a far higher percent of limited life foundations (91 percent) than perpetual
ones (65 percent) say that adherence to the founding donor’s wishes is very important.
These differences endure even with controls for asset size and age. Among foundations
whose donors are alive, however, there were no statistically significant differences
among limited life and perpetual life foundations.
A few other attitudinal differences also were found. Limited life foundations were less
likely to characterize a strong organizational infrastructure, publicizing the foundation
and its work, and joining grantmakers associations as important to being effective.3 The
pattern in the case of emphasizing a strong infrastructure is somewhat distinct and
reveals a sharper polarization among limited life foundations than among perpetual life
ones. On one hand, 48 percent of limited life foundations actually do feel that strong organizational infrastructure is very important to their being effective, but 34 percent say it
is not important. The percentage of perpetual life foundations that characterize infrastructure as very important is quite close (52 percent), but the percent that say it is not
important is only 18 percent. In other words, limited life foundations are less likely to fall
between the extremes. Again, the differences remain significant with controls for the
foundation’s asset size.
Limited life foundations were no more or less likely to attribute importance to the
other 14 items we asked about (e.g., collaboration, an involved board, soliciting outside
advice, establishing focused grantmaking areas).
To this point, we have discussed attitudes. Some attitudinal differences were more
likely to be reflected in differences in practice than others. Although limited life foundations less strongly linked effectiveness and publicizing the foundation and its work, they
were no less likely to actually engage in any of the communication activities we asked
about (e.g., having a web site, publishing annual reports). Likewise, they were equally
likely to join grantmakers associations. And, as we have seen, they do not employ significantly fewer staff, nor were they any less likely to provide staff training. However, in the
case of adherence to donor intent, limited life foundations were indeed more likely to
report using donors’ interests as a criterion in grantmaking decisions.
Grantmaking and Technical Assistance
There were certain differences in the grantmaking criteria limited life and perpetual life
foundations used. Limited life foundations reported giving greater importance to the
donor’s interests in their grantmaking decisions. Here, too, we find that while foundations with a living donor are comparable, there are differences among foundations without a living donor. Among the latter group, 58 percent of limited life foundations
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
5
compared with 37 percent of perpetual ones said the donor’s interests were a very important criterion in their grantmaking decisions over the past two years.4
On the other hand, limited life foundations less often said strength of an application
was very important (47 percent) than did perpetual foundations (66 percent). This difference was related to the fact that limited life foundations were less likely to consider unsolicited applications; once this is taken into account, the differences in strength of proposal
as a criterion disappear. Fifty-nine percent of perpetual foundations, compared with
42 percent of limited life ones, say they give serious consideration to unsolicited grant
applications. Likewise, 37 percent of perpetual foundations said they often fund unsolicited applications, but that was true of 21 percent of limited life foundations. However,
it is difficult in these data to disentangle the extent to which this association is related to
longevity choices or to the greater likelihood that limited life foundations have a living
donor (and such foundations less often fund unsolicited proposals).
A higher percent of limited life foundations say they often made grants for general
operating support (46 percent) than did perpetual life foundations (36 percent). The difference is starker when we consider that fully 33 percent of perpetual foundations compared with only 16 percent of limited life ones say they never or rarely fund general
operating support. The difference remains statistically significant with controls.
Our survey did not ask how often foundations make grants for endowments, but this
would be a very interesting area to explore, given that limited life foundations reject perpetual endowments in their own case. Our interviews revealed striking differences in outlook toward funding endowments among limited life foundations. For some, funding
endowments are used as an important strategy to help sustain grantees following the foundation’s demise. Yet others were as averse to permanent endowments for public charities
as they were for foundations. For instance, one interviewee slipped seamlessly from criticizing perpetual foundations to criticizing universities that “hoard” large endowments.
On a wide array of other questions related to grantmaking, limited life and perpetual
foundations were not distinctive. For instance, they showed no difference in grantmaking goals (e.g., strengthening particular fields or organizations), nor were they more or
less likely to support organizational development, to support foundation-designed initiatives, to support greater or fewer fields of activities, or to make long-term grants.
Limited life foundations were more likely to provide technical assistance in fundraising. While few foundations of either type often provided such assistance, 45 percent of
limited life foundations did so on occasion, compared with 33 percent of unlimited life
foundations. The difference remained statistically significant even after assets and age
were taken into account. It may reflect another strategy used by limited life foundations
concerned with sustaining grantees after their demise. We found no other differences in
provision of technical assistance.
Self-Assessment
Asset management emerges as an area in which limited life foundations give themselves lower ratings. Twenty-four percent of limited life foundations say they are doing
6
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
an excellent job managing their assets, compared with 37 percent of perpetual life
institutions. Eighteen percent say they are doing poor or fair, compared with 13 percent
of those planning perpetual life. Our interviewees cite as a major reason their need to
move endowment funds into lower-risk—and thus lower-yield—investments as they
approach termination. Likewise, they note that they have fewer investment options as
their time horizon grows shorter. We return to this later.
Given that some advocate sunsetting as a way to increase impact (by spending foundation assets sooner), we wondered whether limited life foundations might feel they are
more successful in leveraging their resources to achieve greater impact. Although the
percentage of limited life foundations that rate themselves as excellent was somewhat
higher (33 versus 23 percent of perpetual foundations), the difference was not statistically significant.
Limited life or perpetual foundations were no more or less satisfied with their performance with respect to grants, grantee relations, or staffing. They were more likely to rate
themselves as fair or poor on communications (58 percent) than perpetual foundations
(45 percent), though substantial percentages of limited life and perpetual foundations
rated their performance less favorably on this item.
Motivations, Experiences, and Approaches of Those Planning
to Limit Life: The Interviews
Turning from these survey data to the qualitative materials from individuals in foundations planning or considering termination helps to better understand some of the differences identified in the survey and to explore in greater depth the motivations, experiences,
and challenges associated with termination.
It was usually, but by no means always, the founding donor who made the decision to
terminate. This was true in 15 of the 22 limited life foundations interviewed (in two cases
jointly with a child). In seven cases, the decision was made by a child, surviving spouse,
or nonfamily trustee. As this suggests, several donors left no instructions about longevity,
putting the decision in the hands of trustees.
We propose that many of the very different statements interviewees made about their
motivations and general approach to sunsetting can be usefully classified in terms of
where they fall along the three dimensions mentioned in the introduction: the extent to
which donors and/or trustees approach sunsetting as a positive strategy for achieving a
particular purpose; the extent to which they choose sunsetting because they lack other
options or have a negative view of perpetuity; and whether they view sunsetting solely as
a personal preference or link it to achieving specific philanthropic outcomes.
Some foundations held a positive view of sunsetting and a negative view of perpetuity, but where one view was predominant it tended to be the negative view of perpetuity.
Likewise, it was more common for sunsetting to be seen as a personal preference than for
it to be linked to achieving specific philanthropic goals. Note that the orientation to sunsetting has consequences for how people implement a sunset plan, and it helps explain
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
7
why so many felt little affected by their decision to sunset, and expressed little preoccupation with the process of sunsetting—deferring it until shortly before termination.
Deciding to Sunset
The argument often made by advocates of sunsetting is that it ensures that foundation
funds will not be used in ways that are inconsistent with the donor’s wishes.5 This was
indeed the most commonly mentioned reason by interviewees, who agreed that over
time foundations drift away from the donor’s values and interests. For instance, one
donor believes that foundations are too often “captured” by trustees that do not follow
the donor’s intent. Another donor said a “foundation represents something that a human
being feels. I never felt anyone could adequately represent what I feel. I always know what
I expect when I start something.” Conservatives often point to the Ford Foundation as a
cautionary tale of a perpetual life foundation supporting liberal causes that would not
meet with the founder’s approval. Some interviewees expressed this concern and the
sentiment that Henry Ford “must be turning over in his grave.” One said it was a major
motivation in his parent’s decision to incorporate a sunset provision.
This was not only a reason given by donors who decided to sunset, but also by trustees
of foundations where the donor left no instructions about longevity. In one such case, the
family decided to terminate, because “The foundation is very much geared to carrying out
the creator’s wishes. We have seen foundations drift as they get further away from the creator. . . . To avoid that, we decided to spend out.” This concern with preserving donor intent
was offered as a reason even in cases where the donor had left no guidelines or instructions
about how the foundation’s funds were to be used. The head of one foundation board
explained their decision to terminate as follows: “[The donor] left no guidelines. We have been
governed by his likes and dislikes. The further away we get, the less influence that has on
trustees.” In one unusual case, however, one trustee objected that fellow trustees’ decision
to terminate ran counter to what the donor would have wanted—but also acknowledged that
the donor had left no explicit directions about longevity that would support the claim.
Some trustees, both in foundations with and without a mandated sunset provision,
decided to close the foundation earlier than planned out of concern that the time span away
from the donor was growing too long. As the trustees grew older they realized that the time
would come when the board no longer consisted of people with a connection to the donor.
Sunsetting was chosen in some cases even by donors that reportedly showed no particular signs of having philanthropic intent or interests. For instance, one board head
bluntly said of the foundation’s creators, with whom he had a long association, “They
started the foundation because the alternative was a ne’er do well son who would have
pissed it away or died of a drug overdose first.” Far from “giving while living,” these donors
did not actively engage in philanthropy while alive—and indeed while they were alive,
kept the foundation’s payout level to a minimum.
Those that limit foundation life out of a concern with donor intent diverge markedly
from the longstanding concern that perpetual foundations give donors too much control
by allowing “the dead hand” of the donor to rule over the wishes and needs of the living.
8
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
Their objection to perpetuity is that the intent of the donor will inevitably not remain
dominant. One interviewee objected that too many foundations wind up “180 degrees
from the founder.” The head of the board of another foundation, whose donor left no
instructions regarding longevity, explained:
The key here is not sunset. We were concerned about staying faithful to donor
intent. . . . That becomes difficult over time, not necessarily because the donor’s intent
becomes difficult to fill, but because trustees change their minds. We started asking,
can we assure ourselves that the board will function as it now does in 25 years?
In what might be the worst scenario from the point of view of those concerned with
preservation of donor intent, though, we found (a very small number of) cases in which
trustees had considered ways to avoid the foundation’s sunset provision. In one case, the
trustee argued that they could implement the donor’s sunset instruction by terminating—
but placing the assets in a new foundation that would remain under the family’s control.
He contended that if this were something that the founder would object to, he would have
explicitly ruled it out. In another case, however, a board member had also considered this
because, he said, he is very worried about the impact of the foundation’s termination on
some of their smaller grantees. However, he said that he considered it only briefly, because
he felt that it would violate the “spirit” of the donor’s intent. In yet another case where
trustees were also concerned about the impact on grantees, they investigated the legal possibility of getting around the sunset clause—which proved unsuccessful.
For some, however, the decision to sunset was strongly tied to a sense of personal
commitment and enjoyment of their philanthropy. These were the individuals who spoke
of the “fun,” the “joy,” and the “fulfillment” derived from engaging in philanthropy during their lifetime. As one put it, he “would like to see the results of my philanthropy during my lifetime.” According to the CEO of another foundation, the family has opted to
accelerate their giving because “they enjoy philanthropy” and want to invest in what they
believe in, and do so with one another while they are all alive, without concern for perpetuating assets or institutions.
Few interviewees characterized their motivations as connected to a belief that sunsetting offered strategic advantages for accomplishing a specific type of philanthropic goal
or mission. A major exception was a donor who both personally enjoys engagement in his
giving and also strongly feels that, “I can make more of an impact if I give in a shorter
period of time.” He further explained that given the pressing problems in his particular
field of interest “how can I not give away all of the foundation’s assets in the very near
future?” Likewise, another emphasized that a limited life foundation can have more
impact than a perpetual life foundation where “the endowments are primary. They are not
optimizing the impact they could have. They’re accumulating.”
As this last response indicates, those who select limited life also express aversion to
perpetual foundations apart from their deviation from donor intent. One objection was to
tying up money, but more common ones reflected a dislike of institutionalized philanthropy,
which was seen as bureaucratic and wasteful. A donor who believes a lot of foundation
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
9
spending is wasteful said, “You can’t maintain things without institutionalization. . . . I
don’t want to create something that’s primary purpose is to maintain itself.” Explaining
her family’s decision to limit their foundation’s life, another said, “The overriding reason
was the desire not to create a self-perpetuating bureaucracy.” She feels that, over time,
foundations become “so stagnant” and “spend a lot on offices and staff but not giving
much” and that if she and her family cannot decide what to fund without hiring another
to do it for them, “then why are we doing this?” A few voiced the sentiment that a memorial or ego was the only reason to want to create a foundation in perpetuity.
Some donors, though, did not object to perpetuity per se but did not feel they had that
option. One donor created a foundation with the intent of perpetuity, but his children
were uninterested in his causes and did not want to be involved with the foundation. The
donor decided to terminate, feeling, “It’s unfair to rule from the grave. It’s unfair to burden the children with your interests.” His children will exercise a stewardship role for a
limited time after to ensure that any remaining funds are dispensed as he asked, and then
close the foundation.
Family dynamics are influential in this regard. One foundation decided to terminate
because of tensions within the family, splitting the assets among the various heirs’ foundations. One child of a donor is considering terminating the family foundation because it has
been plagued by family tensions in the past and she does not want her own children to have
to experience these in the future. Some trustees described their (deceased) donors as having
had no children and/or family with whom they were close as the reason for their decision.
One unusual interviewee expressly rejected the contention that there was anything
inherently superior about sunsetting. While sunsetting is his preference, he believes it is
difficult to demonstrate that one longevity plan is superior to another (e.g., with respect
to philanthropic impact). He also feels that “perpetuity is not a foolish choice—and if you
try to prevent it or outlaw it, as some have, there is an overwhelming risk that, since there
are some whose motive is perpetuity, you will lose money.”
In many instances, multiple motivations are at work. For instance, a donor who
enjoys personal involvement philosophically questions the legitimacy of perpetual endowments and feels he can have more impact by sunsetting also acknowledged that if he had
children, he might have reconsidered limiting the foundation’s life. Speaking of her
father’s reasons for setting up a foundation with a sunset provision, one trustee said,
He wanted the pleasure of giving it away while alive. Sunsetting was set up from the beginning. He felt what had happened at [certain large foundations] was the worst of family foundations. Dad felt very strongly about that. . . . [He felt that] The further you get away from
the donor, the further you get away from his values.
Debating Perpetuity and Sunsetting
Among foundations that were formerly undecided and debated perpetuity versus termination, we encountered some of the same considerations. One foundation that opted for
10
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
perpetuity considered, but rejected, the idea that it could make a bigger impact by terminating with a “big bang.” The board members felt the foundation would ultimately
make a larger contribution by continuing to give to community organizations over time.
However, this trustee believed that having the discussion helped clarify and reinforce the
board’s sense of purpose. Another foundation head also opted for perpetuity, but explicitly considering the alternatives had a major impact on her. She considered spending
down due to concerns about deviation from donor intent—but also did not want the
pressure of feeling the foundation had to spend so much money in a given time and
wanted the foundation to remain in the family. She also felt that another foundation that
decided to sunset had suffered by being under that type of pressure. As a consequence,
she decided to opt for a partial spend out, while leaving the remainder in perpetuity. She
said she now feels free to give more and is giving more—but because she wants to, not
because she has to.
Likewise, at another foundation, when the head of the board sensed (for reasons he
declined to elaborate on) that the foundation might move in a direction away from the
donor’s intent, he led the board in the decision to terminate. In another case, the termination was more of a “break-up” than a “spend down” explained the foundation’s former
head. His relative and the donor’s widow decided to spend out the bulk of the assets on a
single gift and split the remainder into her children’s foundations.
The members of one foundation presented a different perspective and an alternative. They have no plans to terminate but stress that perpetuity was never a value for
them. Their belief is that foundations must use their assets to maximize the value they
contribute—and thus should either limit life by paying out their assets or find ways to
better use their assets to fulfill their mission. Thus, they actively look for ways to invest
their corpus that help further their philanthropic mission. They believe that by staying
alive and trying this approach, they may affect other grantmakers (whereas if they spent
out, “no one would care about us now”).
The Experience of Sunsetting
A foundation’s orientation toward sunsetting, however, is not set in stone by the motivations for the initial sunset clause. In some cases, the rationale for sunsetting evolved and
expanded, and foundations sometimes experienced unanticipated benefits. For instance,
over time, family members at the foundation just described came to feel that sunsetting
permitted them greater freedom to innovate and the opportunity to have a greater focus,
though they said that was not a consideration at the beginning. We turn now from the
reasons for sunsetting to the broader experiences and approaches to sunsetting among
limited life foundations.
Perceived Influence of Sunsetting
The influence interviewees most often attributed to sunsetting was that the foundation
gave more funds, exceeding the 5 percent minimum payout required of foundations by
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
11
law. This was not only a factual statement but also translated into an impact on the experience of giving. For several interviewees, the fact that they did not have to focus on preserving the foundation as an entity meant they were freer to spend according their assessment
of philanthropic needs and opportunities. Responding to a question about whether limiting
life has influenced them, one said, “It has in that we’ve never been wedded to the 5 percent
rule. We just give what we want. We don’t have a budget.” Yet she also acknowledged that
one of their biggest challenges was “trying to gutsy up and make big decisions.” Said another,
“We don’t have to worry about future generations. We’re putting all of our money in the game
to see what impact we can have right now.” “We don’t think of it as spending down. We think
of it as spending a lot!” And one board head feels,
Some foundations are perpetual and [take on] a life of their own, and may lose sight of what
they were founded for. They may protect their assets and give less because they are
focused on going on forever. You don’t have to worry about that when you plan limited
life. So if there is a downturn in the market we can still say, “Let’s give the same amount
anyway.”
Sometimes those that initially said sunsetting had no impact on them, later agreed that
it did lead them to give more at times. Several discussed this in terms of sunsetting foundations not being subject to the perceived tendency of perpetual life foundations to focus
on self-preservation rather than mission.
Still, several emphasized that they do not give enormous sums, and as one put it they
“feel no pressure to give away large sums.” In one admittedly extreme case, the executive
director said, “Though we are limited life, our board doesn’t see any need to spend down.
We generally go [a little] over 5 percent, but we stay around that because we’ve got [several] years left and the board is waiting to see how the area evolves.” Another feels free to
spend more, but also emphasized “I won’t be bum rushed into having to spend.” Still, the
prospect of spending sometimes enormous sums of money can be daunting. The CEO of
one foundation said, “We have a conservative spending strategy. We’ll have to up our
spending before we are done.”
A few said that having a termination date made them more focused. The board head at
one foundation who has had experience with both perpetual and limited life foundations said,
If you don’t have the discipline of a date certain, you have in mind a set of long-term operations. . . . You’re not thinking of a date at which you have to account for results but of
programs that must run on. . . . So you think in terms of things that you can accomplish
by a certain date. It’s a big psychological difference.
Another believes that “the most significant advantage is that you’re on the edge of your
seat with a deadline all the time. It creates an atmosphere that you’re much more
focused . . . We want to walk out of here making the donor feel proud.” It should be noted
that this foundation’s timeline for termination was a comparatively shorter one. Interestingly, because of the time horizon, the foundation decided not to pursue funding in one
12
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
particular area because it felt it could not have an impact within its limited timeframe.
Yet another foundation CEO observed that “it focuses the mind more carefully. Like if you
knew that you had 10 years to live—it makes you think.” He added that this develops later
in the process, because “it can be harder to focus on the end date when you are that far
from it.”
A number said that sunsetting permits them to have a greater impact through their
philanthropy. Two interviewees emphasized that because they were able to spend more,
their foundations were able to exercise an influence and leadership role in their field
beyond that normally open to institutions of their size.
Said one, being a spend-down allowed them to spend “one-third more dollars” than
if they had calculated their payout based on maintaining foundation assets in perpetuity,
and “In our experience, you have to come to the table with a credible amount of money
to have an impact.” Another foundation said, “We can think a lot bigger. We can say we’ll
be the lead million dollar gift.” A couple felt it spurred innovation—but another felt it had
just the opposite impact.
A surprisingly high number (over a third) said sunsetting had no influence on them.
Apart from giving more, most saw no impact on what and how they gave.
In sum, the influences that emerged that were characterized primarily from a positive point of view were
● Greater freedom in grantmaking decisions as a result of not having to be concerned
about preserving the endowment;
● The ability for a comparatively smaller foundation to raise its profile and ability to exer-
cise leadership in its chosen field (since it could spend principal);
● A sense of greater focus and discipline from the recognition that time was limited.
Few felt that the decision to limit foundation life resulted in any type of negative influence, but some were mentioned.
Perceived Disadvantages of Limiting Foundation Life
The most commonly mentioned disadvantage was that the foundation’s grantees or in
some cases, an entire field, would lose support. Said one interviewee, “It worries me—
who will take up the slack after we’re gone,” while another major funder in their field
said, “There will be a huge ripple effect when we close.” One distinctive issue that
emerges concerns foundations that fund smaller organizations, a subject to which we
return under planning and strategy. The head of one such foundation believes that the
community would be better served if the foundation were not required to close because it
is located in a region lacking in other large foundations. He said,
Most nonprofits, certainly the ones we deal with . . . are smaller. It may hurt the struggling smaller organizations . . . I don’t know where they’ll go. The biggest disadvantage
is there’s not another foundation to step up and give them help. . . . Some may have to
close up.
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
13
Some foundations expressed confidence that a successful nonprofit would find other ways
to support itself—but others (like the one just cited) were less confident. For instance,
another foundation head also regretted the sunset requirement, because his city is young
and has relatively few foundations.
The issue of sustaining grantees is particularly challenging for foundations that support smaller organizations that they feel are not in a position to be given a large endowment. Indeed, we found some evidence that planning to spend out may bias foundations
toward grants to larger and more established institutions able to absorb very large contributions, as some noted. One foundation is dealing with this issue and proposes giving
greater attention to funding intermediary organizations as a way to sustain funding for
institutions too small to receive large influxes of money.
Perceived negative consequences were sometimes at a more personal level. One foundation president, whose parent closed the foundation after the death of a spouse,
expressed regret that the foundation would not be there for his children. Others experienced a parent’s decision to sunset as expressing a lack of trust or confidence in them
and/or their children. Asked what advice she would give those considering sunsetting, one
donor’s child said they need to think carefully about how they will explain the decision to
their heirs, acknowledging that her own parent’s admonition to “start your own foundation” had “hurt my feelings a little bit.” Another donor’s child is unsure whether she really
wants the family foundation to continue—but has decided that to simply announce a plan
to terminate at this point would be too destructive of family relations.
Interestingly, while a couple, as mentioned, had said spending down spurs innovation, one felt that it has just the opposite effect because the recognition that you won’t
get a second chance prompts you to be more cautious in your choices.
Another negative impact of sunsetting interviewees cited was the proliferation of
solicitations received once the foundation’s plans were announced. One characterized this
as the only negative to sunsetting. Said one board head, “a lot of people have gotten greedy
in their asks. Otherwise, what negative consequences could there be?” Another said, “people do start knocking on your door trying to get the big legacy gift.” One foundation
remained silent about its plans to avoid this.
Implementing a Sunset Plan: Challenges, Opportunities,
and Approaches
When asked about how they were planning for the foundation’s termination, over half
of those interviewed said they had done no planning. Most felt no urgency to do so. In
some cases, this was because the foundation was not required to spend down by a set
date. In a couple of cases, the foundation decided to spend at a rate that would ultimately
result in spending down, but did not set any particular deadline. Thus, one said, “We have
no formal spend down plan. . . . The family is flexible and spontaneous. They are not worried. They focus on what’s needed for this year, not on where the foundation should be
5 to 10 years from now.” Yet even many with a firm termination date feel no compulsion
14
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
to plan. One will not do any planning until five years away from terminating. Another
that has not planned said, “I’m a procrastinator” but feels a need to do some planning
for termination starting six years prior to closing. At one foundation, there is no feeling
of pressure to plan for how to “zero out” because whatever funds remain will simply be
split among the children’s trusts.
Others said they will continue to spend as they do, and if funds remain, they will allocate them to charities the foundation has traditionally supported. For instance, at one foundation, they have started to say, “We have certain organizations in mind and maybe we
should start to jot down these thoughts when we have them.” But if they have money left,
they will simply give it to the organizations the founder valued most. One foundation explicitly avoided the discussion because they felt it would put them “in the mindset of closing”
while they want to look at moving forward. He acknowledged at some point, though, they
will have to look for a way to keep “golden handcuffs” on staff members to remain.
However, we did find indications that failure to plan can result in problems. In one
case, a foundation had not done any planning and found itself approaching its termination date, at which point the board felt it lacked adequate time. This resulted in their
extending the termination date (which required legal approval). Still, the foundation
trustee feels it was not a mistake to wait. “There was no reason to make plans earlier. The
environment changes when people know that you’ll not be here forever.” He explained
that once their plans became public, they were besieged by requests, and he spends most
of his time speaking with people about their plans to terminate.
A few foundations offered case examples of how a sunsetting plan can be used proactively to attain specific philanthropic and personal goals. For these foundations, planning was an integral part of their operations at an early point.
The first case is that of a foundation mentioned earlier that saw limiting foundation
life as a way to have a far greater impact in its field. The larger grants it made put it at a
level of leadership in the field that would require far higher assets if it planned perpetuity (and thus spent at lower levels to ensure the continued level of the endowment). For
this foundation,
A goal of someone in a spend-down situation is to create things with sustainability. One
way is to nurture other’s willingness to fund them. . . . Our goal was that we could be
thought of so well that we would be the Good Housekeeping Seal of approval for other
funders. . . . It’s worked a percentage of the time.
They focused on helping grantees in their field develop their own capacity for fundraising (e.g., by developing a membership base). This and some other foundations cited
partnering as an important strategy as well. Thus, one “will be partnering more because
you don’t want grantees to become so dependent that they will go out of business when
you close.” Some foundations made it a point not to become too dominant a funder of any
one organization.
In another model, a limited life foundation of a larger size was seen as a vehicle for
carrying out a deceased donor’s trust. Rather than view the foundation only as an
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
15
annual grantmaker, trustees planned how to best achieve the donor’s purposes and
designed foundation operations accordingly. In some cases, that required creating
and/or strengthening institutions that would ultimately receive substantial gifts. In
trustees’ view, the foundation provided an oversight mechanism until such time as the
organizations were strong enough to operate and administer their full donation on
their own. Indeed, by the time of the interview, they concluded that the foundation’s
purpose had been accomplished and planned to close early. For smaller grantees that
the foundation felt “had no permanence that you’d want to endow,” the foundation
made a “parting balloon gift.”
In a similar case, one of the living donors plans to leave his foundation in existence
for a short time after his death for a comparable reason—to provide support to some of
the newer ventures he has funded until they are strong enough to be “spun off.”
Among those that did more planning for termination, concern about the fate of the
grantees was a primary concern. Matching gifts were often mentioned as a way to promote organizations’ finding other sources of donations. A couple of foundations indicated
that they did not see this as their problem, however, and one emphasized its grantees will
have to “row their own boat. It gives them a strong incentive to maintain the quality of
their programs.” But this was the more atypical outlook.
A few noted that retaining staff (who might leave knowing the foundation’s plan to
close) was an issue. Some used retention bonuses. Another offered staff funding for educational and retraining programs, though few staff had availed themselves of these. One
foundation—again, one that approached spending down more strategically and integrated
planning for it early—decided to use a mix of consultants and employees, so that they could
more easily cut back at the end of the foundation’s life. They provided some incentives for
remaining employees. For another foundation, once the decision to terminate was made,
“the big concern was how to treat our staff. They will put themselves out of a job. . . . We
created a sequestered fund . . . to be paid to employees to remain.” Still, several felt it was
a challenge to find a delicate balance between incentives to retain staff and spending funds
that would otherwise be used for grants. For a number of foundations, the issue of planning for staff did not arise because staff were at an age where they would be retiring.
One executive director who we interviewed pointed to the potential problems of not
addressing the issue at all with staff. She said the staff know the foundation will close, but
“we’re kept in the dark. . . . At some point we’ll need answers.” The staff remain, she said,
because they like the work and the foundation offers them a great deal of discretion in
grantmaking—but at some point concerns about job security and the future will become
more paramount. Others, however, seemed little concerned either because they would be
retiring or felt that they did not need or want to stay in one position too long anyway. The
issue did not impact one CEO’s decision to take his job. He said, “I like the idea of an entity
that self-destructs.”
In some cases, challenges to implementing a sunset plan were attributed to circumstances created by a deceased founder, either through instructions given or omitted. In
one case, a founder did not leave guidelines concerning philanthropic uses of funds, but
did leave specific instructions concerning foundation spending rates. The problem was
16
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
that these instructions were written in a way that kept the foundation from actually
spending at levels to permit a drawdown of assets over time, and would require it to do
the entire spend out in one day. The foundation has already had to request permission to
modify one provision and will seek permission to modify this one as well. In another case,
a donor incorporated a sunset provision at the outset—yet also left the foundation an
investment that will come to it just around the time it is set to close.
Earlier, we noted that limited life foundations rate themselves lower on asset management. This was indeed a challenge for some foundations, and interviewees shed light
on this finding. They explained that as their timeframe shortened, they increasingly have
to convert assets to more conservative investments to ensure they would have adequate
funds to pay off their obligations. Said one,
There is a difference in how you invest your funds when you plan for perpetuity. If you plan
on perpetuity, then you have to tilt toward equity as a high percent of your total return. . . .
As you get ready for timing out—your returns diminish toward the end. The thesis here is
that limited life foundations will have to tilt toward lower volatility in their investments in
order to reduce their risk over time.
Said another,
What was challenging was to develop an investment strategy, knowing that money lost
today couldn’t be made up later. Our portfolio had to shift dimensions of risk and security over time. Our investment strategy had to become more like your 65-year-old
grandmother’s, even though our grants were edgy. . . . My goal is that we hit the runway right [in the year we close]. On a quarterly basis, we update our forecast. If we outperform, we have more money that we need to put back in the till. We have developed a
planning tool that allows us to do this. The biggest impediment (to spending down) is
the financial planning tool to help people do it.
In the previous case, the asset management challenge was compounded by the
foundation’s goal of “zeroing out.” This is less of a pressure for foundations that feel
more comfortable with the idea of dividing up and giving away whatever assets are left
at the end.
One interviewee believes that this and other perceived challenges reflect an overly
closed view of the sunsetting process. He said, for instance, “Suppose my grant is to [a
university]. At the end, I don’t have to give them money, I could transfer a part of the foundation’s portfolio. The portfolio goes on forever.” In his view, spending down has to do
only with “the life of the skin,” and the foundation is only a skin around the people and
resources that constitute it. From that perspective, the foundation may close but the
resources will continue to be administered, in another way. In a related vein, one donor
likewise emphasized that what is important is not that the foundation endures, because
it is only a vehicle. Instead, he said what is important is that the programs it creates
develop an independent life and continue.
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
17
Conclusions and Implications
Limited life foundations represent a small part of the foundation universe, yet one that
encompasses considerable heterogeneity. Deep personal engagement by some donors, little evidence of philanthropic passions on the part of others, philosophical convictions by
some, purely personal preferences by others—all of these are to be found in the world of
limited life foundations. Some are against perpetual endowments per se or want the fulfillment of “giving while living,” while others would not object to perpetuity if they were
convinced that the “dead hand” (i.e., their wishes) could indeed rule forever, or had descendants to continue the foundation. We have suggested that this variety is helpfully captured
by classifying where foundations stand in their orientation to limiting life along three
dimensions: the extent to which they have a positive orientation toward sunsetting; the
extent to which they have a negative orientation toward perpetuity (or feel it is not an
option for them); and whether they approach sunsetting solely as a personal preference or
as a strategy for strengthening their philanthropic effectiveness.
The orientation has practical consequences, because a spend-down plan that is well
suited for one type of limited life foundation may hold little relevance for another. Likewise, it has consequences for how much planning a foundation feels is necessary. Thus, a
trustee at one foundation said sunsetting was exclusively about preservation of donor
intent, and had little influence on long-term planning. Yet for those at a foundation seeking to enhance its impact through sunsetting, long-term planning about how to terminate is part of efforts to achieve that impact.
Our interviewees revealed that in a variety of ways, sunsetting often had unanticipated
benefits—and drawbacks. Thus, a sunsetting provision introduced to allow “giving while
living” and preserve donor intent at one organization later evolved into a sense that sunsetting could permit the foundation to have a greater impact and take greater risks to
achieve it. For others, the feeling of freedom to spend according to perception of philanthropic criteria without worrying about the preservation of the foundation as an entity
proved a major benefit. Yet another acknowledged that the pressure to spend had resulted
in some poor grant decisions.
Experiences of sunsetting are also contextual. Those funding in regions or fields without many other funders experienced concerns about grantee sustainability not faced by
those that feel confident of other funding sources. For some, the decision to sunset
prompted giving to larger and more established organizations capable of absorbing large
sums of money—while others that funded smaller organizations saw no way to help these
nonprofits following their demise. Some are considering addressing this problem by
working with intermediary organizations that can absorb larger funds and continue the
foundation’s work in fields populated by smaller organizations.
In response to the mixed and sometimes contradictory forces pulling donors and
trustees, some adopted other options. Thus, a donor who wants to pursue her own philanthropic priorities without the pressure of feeling she must spend, and who also wants
her family to remain involved (even as she questions what they may do with funds),
decided on a partial spend-down strategy. One foundation rejects leaving assets to grow
18
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
in perpetuity because it pulls money out of philanthropic circulation—but rather than
spend out, has decided to maximize the percent of its assets invested in ways that will
advance its philanthropic mission.
The issue of donor intent is key in discussions of longevity, and our survey findings
indicate that donors who are very concerned about this should consider sunsetting as an
option. Experiences some of our interviewees reported will likely reinforce the fears of
those wary of trustees capturing foundations for their own, rather than the donor’s intentions. Thus, one trustee, whose proposal to terminate to avoid drifting away from the
donor’s intent was rejected by fellow board members who did not know the donor, felt
other board members wanted to continue in order to enjoy the prestige of their board
membership. Yet our findings also reveal that at some foundations, the major challenge
to implement donor intent lies not with staff or trustees, but with donors themselves.6
Thus, one donor required termination while mandating a spending formula that promotes asset preservation. At other foundations, we found trustees struggling to divine the
intent of donors who left little or no instructions or records of their philanthropic interests. For instance, a trustee at one foundation said,
It was [the donor’s] decision not to leave guidelines. . . . The trustees spent a lot of time
determining what to focus the foundation’s giving on, and what we think he would want.
Our focus could have been better served if we had guidelines. . . . I discussed it with him,
and he didn’t want to lay down guidelines. I don’t know why. Perhaps he thought it might
hasten his death.
As this quote reminds us, decisions about foundations, philanthropy, and longevity
may be deeply influenced by extra-philanthropic concerns. Our interviews testified to the
impact of family dynamics on longevity decisions. They further indicate that the way that
a founder discusses plans to sunset can also have a considerable impact on family dynamics and the feelings of other family members.
There are many complexities and nuances to sunsetting and decisions about longevity.
Thinking about longevity prompts donors and trustees to address explicitly the purpose
of a foundation’s endowment and its use in relation to the foundation’s goals and purposes. We believe that the strategic uses of sunsetting as a philanthropic approach would
benefit from further exploration. These could then be more fully integrated into donors’
and trustees’ planning from the outset. Yet we also recognize that for some, such possibilities will be of interest only as a side product to their fundamental personal purpose for
choosing to limit life.
We opened by stating that our findings were offered in a preliminary spirit intended
to spur and inform future research. In this spirit, we close by identifying some areas for
future work.
● What are the ways that limited life foundations have utilized sunsetting as a strategic
approach to achieving philanthropic outcomes? Does sunsetting enhance or detract
from the attainment of particular philanthropic objectives?
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
19
● What is the impact of sunsetting from the perspective of grantees? Do they experience
●
●
●
●
●
●
involvement with limited life and perpetual foundations differently? And what impact,
if any, do they feel that a foundation’s decision to sunset has on their field?
Are there strategies (e.g., use of intermediaries) that some limited life foundations have
successfully used to manage the particular challenge of fostering sustainability among
smaller nonprofit grantees?
How many years are sunsetting foundations generally created to endure? What difference does their overall longevity make to their philanthropy?
What strategies have limited life foundations developed to deal with the distinctive
challenges of asset management (both in terms of investing and setting payout levels
each year) that such foundations often experience? How are the challenges experienced
influenced by the foundation’s end goal for disposition of assets (e.g., “zeroing out” vs.
division among other foundations)?
What are the consequences of different closure strategies on the benefits and challenges experienced by foundations in the process of sunsetting? For instance, how does
a commitment to “zeroing out” affect a foundation, compared to a willingness to leave
remaining funds to a community foundation or divide it among existing nonprofits?
How do the attitudes of limited life foundations toward foundation perpetuity compare
with their attitudes about perpetual endowments in public charities? What difference
does their outlook make for how they spend down?
What is the significance of the foundation as a philanthropic vehicle once perpetuity is
no longer a goal? For instance, what difference does it make for a donor to give through
a limited life foundation rather than giving the funds away directly to a nonprofit?
As we can see, much remains to be answered. What is clear, though, is that all who
had considered both options, perpetuity and sunsetting, felt it was beneficial to do so—
regardless of how they decided. One foundation emerged from its discussion convinced
that it was more beneficial to its community to preserve its assets rather than make a
“big bang” by giving more in a shorter period. The process helped to clarify and reaffirm
its purposes. Said one interviewee, “Not all foundations should sunset, but all foundations should consider it.” This study strongly confirms that donors and trustees would
indeed benefit by considering not only sunsetting but perpetuity, and the larger question of how the foundation’s assets and their use can best serve its own particular philanthropic purposes.
Notes
1.
20
When we contacted foundations that reported being undecided in 2003 for interviews in 2007 and 2008, several (8 of 22) said they planned perpetuity and did not recollect a time when that had been in question. This is
one reason the number of undecided foundations interviewed is lower than the number of limited life foundations interviewed. It is hard to know what accounts for this, but, at least in some cases, it could be due to a
turnover in staff and trustees. The calculation of the response rate includes only those that confirmed they were
undecided at some point or considered termination.
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
2.
In multivariate models with a control for foundation age, the West Coast foundations remained significantly
more likely to plan termination than southern ones. The relationship between East Coast and southern foundations though was just above the .05 level. The differences endured with controls for assets size and age.
3.
Four percent of limited life foundations characterized publicizing the foundation and its work as very important, compared with 16 percent of perpetual life foundations, and 23 percent of limited life foundations characterized joining a grantmakers association as very important, compared with 33 percent of perpetual
foundations.
4.
Limited life and perpetual foundations did not differ in the importance that they assigned the founding donor
with respect to formulating their foundation’s grantmaking program priorities.
5.
For instance, the Philanthropy Roundtable, whose president describes the history of modern philanthropy
as “a story of one foundation after another violating . . . the most cherished values of their founding donors”
counsels members to consider a sunset provision (PND News Digest, November 26, 2006).
6.
On this point, see Fleishman (2007) and Meadows (2002).
References
Boris, Elizabeth T, 1987. “Creation and Growth: A Survey of Private Foundations.” In America’s Wealthiest and the
Future of Foundations, edited by Teresa Odendahl (65–126). New York: Foundation Center.
Fleishman, Joel L. 2007. The Foundation: A Great American Secret. New York: Public Affairs.
Meadows, Curtis W., Jr. 2002. “Philanthropic Choice and Donor Intent.” Waldemar A. Nielsen Issues in Philanthropy
Seminar Series, November 22. http://cpnl.georgetown.edu/doc_pool/Nielsen0205Meadows.pdf.
Renz, Loren, and Steven Lawrence. 2004. “Foundation Growth and Giving Estimates: 2003 Preview.” New York:
Foundation Center. http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/fgge04.pdf.
Limited Life Foundations: Motivations, Experiences, and Strategies
21
The Urban
Institute
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 202.833.7200
Fax: 202.429.0687
E-mail: paffairs@ui.urban.org
http://www.urban.org